5 ms·
Most of the libraries are sampled are 5-10 years old, for the most part. Not sure if you just consider them "feature complete" or if thats a bad thing (mix of
by no_wizard 4y ago
Most of the libraries are sampled are 5-10 years old, for the most part.
Not sure if you just consider them "feature complete" or if thats a bad thing (mix of both?) but it does mean most are not written in ES Module syntax, which can bloat bundles potentially
- JustSomeNobody 4y agoConsidering they are “micro” libraries, I would guess feature complete.
- lloydatkinson 4y agoI'm getting real sick of the state of npmjs.org and the lack of ES modules. Or, the lack of documentation on ES modules. So many examples, even for brand new 2022 libraries, show using require() and other gross syntax. It's simply unacceptable in <current year> that require, commonjs, etc are being used. Take, for example, the yargs module. Somehow, a very popular library. Nowhere in the docs does it show a <working> example of how to import it as an ES module. Worse still, the typescript typings are all wrong. For example: await yargs.parseAsync() shows as valid TS as the typings indicate that is a function. In reality, you get a runtime error because that function simply does not exist on that object. It's a mess and I cannot wait for Deno to become more popular.
- antifa 4y agoI'm in the market for a "microts" website, basically the same but for typescript-first content.
- gitgud 4y agoI think this is just a super old website, I wouldn't consider them all "feature complete"